I have been interested by concertina design for a long time now and want to know what changes all of you concertina players would like to have made to the design of your instruments in an ideal world.

I am looking for people to make suggestions here, in as much or as little depth as you like. For example you might want to just suggest it be louder, or more comfortable to play, or you might go into great mechanical detail if you feel like it. Lets talk about all of the systems of concertina. Perhaps you might even suggest a new system? It would be great to talk to people about what we want and share ideas as to how someone might achieve these desires through design. I will start us off:

I would want an anglo concertina with bigger buttons, so they would be easier to locate with the fingers but not so big that it would affect their positioning. Probably mushroom shaped like a melodeons buttons, though smaller, made to be half way between the melodeon button and the concertinas button. I would also want a different arrangement of weight-distribution and hand support so as to make it very easy and comfortable to play standing up. I would also want it to be lighter in weight.

As an avowed Luddite I would like to maintain the status quo. Do not re-invent the wheel . It ain't broke so don't fix it. Most modifications are to cover poor technique and lack of ability, as one that has both i can understand

I like button indentations to index the hands; not so much during play, but when first starting.

I'd also like to see more modifications made in the interest of long-term durability, as some wooden fretwork tends to break at the small points.

Especially as someone who often lives in the US (with its huge climate variations) and often travels, I'd like to see some use of materials/methods which helps to minimize swelling/contracting of the wood which leads to leakages and even potentially cracks in the soundboard.

I'd particularly like to see some inexpensive starter concertinas of decent quality produced using casting/milling of quality synthetics to keep the price down and durability high. The "Stagi Brunner Beginner" is a plastic 20b Anglo that's supposed to be pretty okay for the price, and looks like it'd be great to haul camping, to festivals, etc. Something like that but done with a bit more quality and not so huge and clunky would be great.

And, like so many people, I'm eagerly awaiting some clever tech cracking the code on the best way to produce concertina-type reeds in batches to narrow the price gap between accordion reeds and true concertina reeds.

First thing that cames to mind is ergonomics (in terms of bellows controll, fingers reach and overall handling of the instrument in different body positions). Traditional handrail/handstrap have never suited me well, as I have very long fingers. I did some rudimentary adjustments to my Elise and plan to do some own research on this topic when my DIY project will finally reach handling stage.

The second thing to fiddle with is simplifying the action board, both in terms of number of parts and serviceability of the instrument. It drove me a bit mad to position and bush all buttons when I did my keyboard modification to the Elise. I have some ideas to experiment with on my DIY box and I remember seeing a drawing by one of concertina makers, that illustrated the usage of linear springs under the buttons, but I cannot find it now...

@Matthew - I think that the most robust concertinas suitable for camping and oher harsh conditions are some of the old German 20b Anglos - those which use common plate reeds. This is because such reeds are mounted to reedblocks not by waxing but by screws, so can tolerate high and low temperatures well. Unfortunately, they are usually double reeded, so they are quite large. As to concertina reeds - they not only need more work per piece, but also require a lot more work with the reedpan and there is too little demand for them for large scale production. So I wouldn't count on any change in their price and availability in any foreseeable time.

As an avowed Luddite I would like to maintain the status quo. Do not re-invent the wheel . It ain't broke so don't fix it. Most modifications are to cover poor technique and lack of ability, as one that has both i can understand

I think concertinas are awesome and don't want to attack them and say they are bad but I have to say I disagree with this as a design philosophy, please hear me out on this one but of course we might disagree. Though I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with concertinas I always thought that things should always be questioned and improved and innovated upon as a process of evolution. The design of anything is rarely static, people always come up with new ways of doing things to improve the design in question. If someone can design a way of making a concertina easier to play I dont think we should see that as a dumbing down of technique as you are basically able to reach a higher standard of playing with less effort, kind of like how you might be able to throw a stone ball a certain distance and a lighter wood one a further distance, thats gotta be good right?

A good comparison is how violins have evolved:

they started having chin rests in the were invented in the 19th century after violins had been about since the 16th. Most players use them and like them (though thats not to say they have to).

The violin is a complex example and when many old instruments are amazing the obvious example being a Stradivarius, its hard to see how such a design can be improved upon but.. amazingly the design has been improved upon, blind testing between strads and modern violins revealed that concert violinists found newer ones better, see this article:

It is amazing to see that there is great progress made by modern violin makers, well done to them. Most concertina makers I have spoken to have put their own spin on the instrument vs a 19th century one, which I find really cool too.

[All of the following ideas refer to Hayden Duet]

First thing that cames to mind is ergonomics (in terms of bellows controll, fingers reach and overall handling of the instrument in different body positions). Traditional handrail/handstrap have never suited me well, as I have very long fingers. I did some rudimentary adjustments to my Elise and plan to do some own research on this topic when my DIY project will finally reach handling stage.

The second thing to fiddle with is simplifying the action board, both in terms of number of parts and serviceability of the instrument. It drove me a bit mad to position and bush all buttons when I did my keyboard modification to the Elise. I have some ideas to experiment with on my DIY box and I remember seeing a drawing by one of concertina makers, that illustrated the usage of linear springs under the buttons, but I cannot find it now...

@Matthew - I think that the most robust concertinas suitable for camping and oher harsh conditions are some of the old German 20b Anglos - those which use common plate reeds. This is because such reeds are mounted to reedblocks not by waxing but by screws, so can tolerate high and low temperatures well. Unfortunately, they are usually double reeded, so they are quite large. As to concertina reeds - they not only need more work per piece, but also require a lot more work with the reedpan and there is too little demand for them for large scale production. So I wouldn't count on any change in their price and availability in any foreseeable time.

I find it interesting that you mention the traditional handrail and hand strap orientation not suiting you. I found this exact same thing. I actually spoke to Marcus of Marcus music about this one. Basically he said that he moved the hand rail on his anglos further back away from the buttons and made them higher than nornmally positioned on a 19th c concertina. I had an old lachenal anglo with me that I tried side by side with his anglo and found his more comfortable in my hands. Maybe that might be what you need for your duet?

I like button indentations to index the hands; not so much during play, but when first starting.

I'd also like to see more modifications made in the interest of long-term durability, as some wooden fretwork tends to break at the small points.

Especially as someone who often lives in the US (with its huge climate variations) and often travels, I'd like to see some use of materials/methods which helps to minimize swelling/contracting of the wood which leads to leakages and even potentially cracks in the soundboard.

I'd particularly like to see some inexpensive starter concertinas of decent quality produced using casting/milling of quality synthetics to keep the price down and durability high. The "Stagi Brunner Beginner" is a plastic 20b Anglo that's supposed to be pretty okay for the price, and looks like it'd be great to haul camping, to festivals, etc. Something like that but done with a bit more quality and not so huge and clunky would be great.

And, like so many people, I'm eagerly awaiting some clever tech cracking the code on the best way to produce concertina-type reeds in batches to narrow the price gap between accordion reeds and true concertina reeds.

I am interested to read what you have written about swelling and contracting of the wood. Kensington concertinas have a design feature that combats this effect : http://www.kensingto...gton-reeds.html

I am very interested to know if anyone ever tried a more extreme approach and made the sound board or reed pan out of plastic, and how that would effect the sound and general function.

Jake, I suggest you do some searching through old topics/threads, as there have been individual threads on a number of issues that come under your request. (FWIW, I usually use Google's Advanced Search, since the built-in facility here often misses things.)

E.g.,

It's been mentioned several times that some South African makers use perspex (plastic) for their reed pans. And their customers are apparently not unhappy. Potential use of plastics for other purposes/parts has also been discussed.

Personal preferences for button size and spacing tend to vary widely. And historically, there have been significant variations in these dimensions on (English made) anglos, though not on Englishes or duets.

Many other features/factors also come under the "one size does notfit all" classification. Dimensions and positioning of the hand rail on anglos and duets is definitely one of those.

I'll try to give more specifics -- including about my own personal preferences -- in a following post, but first I must go feed the sheep.

Things the poster would like in order to (they hope) improve their personal concertina experience. These preferences can vary considerably among individuals, even to being direct opposites. ¨(Jake, I personally prefer the smaller buttons. )

Things the poster believes will "improve" the instrument in ways that will render it more attractive and/or accessible (easy to get started on?) to a broad audience. E.g., lighter weight, smaller size, and less sensitivity to weather. (It seems to me that there are also some items that their proposers feel are in this category, but which I feel are more in the first category.)

Pipe dreams. E.g., cut the price in half without adversely affecting any other property.

1. The only way to satisfy "everyone" with regard to the first category is to offer multiple designs or have ways to adjust those parameters. E.g.,

Positioning of the hand rail on anglos and duets: Some like it high, some low. Some near the button array, some farther away. Some might want it angled with respect to the button array. I can even imagine someone wanting -- even needing -- it different for each hand. The "obvious" solution is to have a design that is adjustable in all of those dimensions. The problem seems to be designing such a mechanism that is still sufficiently rigid and rugged in use. Or maybe just doing so at a reasonable cost?

Hand straps: We already have a separate thread to discuss adjustable hand straps. All the current designs (that I know of) can be adjusted, but not easily. And only a few can be adjusted continuously, rather than to a series of discrete positions. OK, inventors, here's your cue.

Button diameter: As already noted, Jake and I seem to have opposite preferences. This might seem irreconcilable, but maybe not. Jake suggests a button design that resembles a mushroom-like stem and cap. Well, what about detachable caps? Something that could be pressed on similarly to the way rubber suction cups are popped onto plastic shafts to make darts for children's toys?

Volume: Some want loud, some not so loud. An inherently loud instrument with baffles that are easily removed and re-attached seems one possible solution, though questions of tonality might prove an obstacle.

2. These are not necessarily independent. (I suppose the same could also be said of the above.)

Smaller instrument: There have been a few reported instances of instruments in smaller-than-standard bodies, e.g., a treble-range English in a piccolo (octabe higher) body. Are these more difficult -- and therefore more costly -- to make? Do they sound different? I don't know.

Lighter weight: In principal, one would expect a smaller instrument to weigh less. But other factors can also be adjusted. The instruments from the Button Box have a reputation for being much lighter than those of other makers. What are the differences which contribute to this? Rich Morse and his colleagues did a lot of research and experimentation to reach that objective. Can it be improved upon?

3. Modern makers have put a great deal of effort into developing a "best" compromise between acceptable quality and low price. Their solutions aren't identical, but indicate that it's not (yet?) possible to optimize both.

@ button size&spacing: not much can be done here, I'm afraid. There are different button sizes with Anglos, but with Englishes and Duets you have to fit even twice as much buttons within comfortable reach. There is simply no way to make this happen on a 7"box - you need something the size of chemnitzer to do that. It is not only the size of the keyboard, but also minimum lever lenght and lever routing that play significant role here. Only Tona's Custom Dipper has bigger buttons, because his layout is arranged around the wrist pivot point.

@ my handrail/handstrap: I'm thinking about quite distinctive design here, but I will share it after building a working and proven prototype for my DIY.

@ adjustable handrail: I can think about at least a couple of robust, adjustable designs, of both height and distance to keyboard. And even slant. And I think that if there were demand on such solutions, modern concertina makers would include them. The problem here is that only few of us think in terms of adjusting concertinas to our personal needs. And there is one other limiting factor here: you can sell your instrument easier if it has common ergonomics and can be played by the new owner straight ahead.

And there is also one other question: how much change in ergonomics/design/layout will make the result to be a completely different instrument? Chemnitzers and bandoneons are also in the concertina family, but on this forum we don't treat them as such. There is one guy who makes rectangular "anglos" with large melodeon buttons...

@ button size&spacing: not much can be done here, I'm afraid. There are different button sizes with Anglos, but with Englishes and Duets you have to fit even twice as much buttons within comfortable reach. There is simply no way to make this happen on a 7"box

My Concertina Connection Elise and Peacock button diameters are about 3/16", or about 4.5 mm. The buttons on a (7") Button Box Beaumont are 1/4", about 6.5mm. This does not sound very much, but it results in roughly double the surface area on the top of the button. [*]

The button spacing for the Beaumont is the same as for other Haydens - 16 x 9 mm.

Brian Hayden recommends 6mm diameter buttons, but says that he did try to persuade Robin Scard of Dipper Concertinas to use 1/4" (6.5mm) buttons .

The much maligned Stagi 46 button uses 8mm diameter buttons, but it also uses a wider, weirder spacing.

So, the button sizes on Haydens do vary. I am curious about the effect this has on playability?

Lukasz: what size have you used on your own project? And why?

Don.

[*] The cheap plastic callipers that I am using to make these measurements are not very good, but you get the idea.

. being able to adjust the volume of individual notes, or at least to be able to controllably quieten the bass notes

. being able to transpose the entire instrument to change its 'core key'. For example an Anglo that can play in C/G, G/D or Ab/Eb, etc... or a Hayden duet that can switch to Ab as its core key instead of D.

(I think the Hayden core key is D rather than C because D is in the middle of the button field and has more room around it. You could argue that the Hayden core key might be A, especially on a 65 button instrument. An EC or a Crane's core key would be C, I think. Make sense?)

If I can recall corectly, original Elise buttons are just a bit under 5mm and my current alluminium ones are also 5mm. For my DIY I go for 6mm diameter (which will sink completely into endplates when pressed) for two main reasons:

- increased comfort of long sessions. I use flat buttons with beveled edges. More diameter means more room for nice, round bevel and still enough space left for comfortable flat area.

- easier multibutton fingering. In this case 6mm buttons seem to me as the largest option available with standard Hayden spacing. On my MIDI prototype I have 7,5mm buttons (with a slightly different spacing - 15x10) and it requires a great deal of precision while fingering - it is prone to accidental multibutton presses.

And just for the sake of comparison: while 4,5-6,5mm is somewhat variable width, my cheap Anglo has 10mm buttons and could easily be fitted with my CBA's 14mm buttons. Both 10 and 14 mm buttons allow for very fast, very expressive fingerings which are quite hard on a tight Hayden grid...

Łukasz, would you explain why you'd want the buttons to completely sink into the ends? For my own (EC) playing I'm very comfortable with a short travel, leaving the (as you will know rather small EC-) buttons about 2 mm above the ends...

(and OTOH an occasional try on a Lachenal New Model with buttons sinking into the (raised) ends left me quite rattled)

Because when playing a lot of drone accompaniment or using a lot of minor chords in oompah rhytms it is the fully depressed state that hurts my fingers most. I have my middle finger significantly longer than index and third, so playing minor chords on a Hayden makes me back bend my middle finger and press he button with a fingertip near the nail instead of a digit [I hope this vocabulary makes sense ]. With sinking buttons finger rests on an endplate which is far more comfortable.

Things the poster would like in order to (they hope) improve their personal concertina experience. These preferences can vary considerably among individuals, even to being direct opposites. ¨(Jake, I personally prefer the smaller buttons. )

Things the poster believes will "improve" the instrument in ways that will render it more attractive and/or accessible (easy to get started on?) to a broad audience. E.g., lighter weight, smaller size, and less sensitivity to weather. (It seems to me that there are also some items that their proposers feel are in this category, but which I feel are more in the first category.)

Pipe dreams. E.g., cut the price in half without adversely affecting any other property.

1. The only way to satisfy "everyone" with regard to the first category is to offer multiple designs or have ways to adjust those parameters. E.g.,

Positioning of the hand rail on anglos and duets: Some like it high, some low. Some near the button array, some farther away. Some might want it angled with respect to the button array. I can even imagine someone wanting -- even needing -- it different for each hand. The "obvious" solution is to have a design that is adjustable in all of those dimensions. The problem seems to be designing such a mechanism that is still sufficiently rigid and rugged in use. Or maybe just doing so at a reasonable cost?

Hand straps: We already have a separate thread to discuss adjustable hand straps. All the current designs (that I know of) can be adjusted, but not easily. And only a few can be adjusted continuously, rather than to a series of discrete positions. OK, inventors, here's your cue.

Button diameter: As already noted, Jake and I seem to have opposite preferences. This might seem irreconcilable, but maybe not. Jake suggests a button design that resembles a mushroom-like stem and cap. Well, what about detachable caps? Something that could be pressed on similarly to the way rubber suction cups are popped onto plastic shafts to make darts for children's toys?

Volume: Some want loud, some not so loud. An inherently loud instrument with baffles that are easily removed and re-attached seems one possible solution, though questions of tonality might prove an obstacle.

2. These are not necessarily independent. (I suppose the same could also be said of the above.)

Smaller instrument: There have been a few reported instances of instruments in smaller-than-standard bodies, e.g., a treble-range English in a piccolo (octabe higher) body. Are these more difficult -- and therefore more costly -- to make? Do they sound different? I don't know.

Lighter weight: In principal, one would expect a smaller instrument to weigh less. But other factors can also be adjusted. The instruments from the Button Box have a reputation for being much lighter than those of other makers. What are the differences which contribute to this? Rich Morse and his colleagues did a lot of research and experimentation to reach that objective. Can it be improved upon?

3. Modern makers have put a great deal of effort into developing a "best" compromise between acceptable quality and low price. Their solutions aren't identical, but indicate that it's not (yet?) possible to optimize both.

Great in depth reply. I suppose preferences are preferences when it comes to buttons, at its core playing an instrument is a personal thing. I like the suggestion of an adjustable hand rail. Interesting idea. I as you say the only problem with that would be weather people would be prepared to pay more for it or how easily it could be done.

@ button size&spacing: not much can be done here, I'm afraid. There are different button sizes with Anglos, but with Englishes and Duets you have to fit even twice as much buttons within comfortable reach. There is simply no way to make this happen on a 7"box - you need something the size of chemnitzer to do that. It is not only the size of the keyboard, but also minimum lever lenght and lever routing that play significant role here. Only Tona's Custom Dipper has bigger buttons, because his layout is arranged around the wrist pivot point.

@ my handrail/handstrap: I'm thinking about quite distinctive design here, but I will share it after building a working and proven prototype for my DIY.

@ adjustable handrail: I can think about at least a couple of robust, adjustable designs, of both height and distance to keyboard. And even slant. And I think that if there were demand on such solutions, modern concertina makers would include them. The problem here is that only few of us think in terms of adjusting concertinas to our personal needs. And there is one other limiting factor here: you can sell your instrument easier if it has common ergonomics and can be played by the new owner straight ahead.

And there is also one other question: how much change in ergonomics/design/layout will make the result to be a completely different instrument? Chemnitzers and bandoneons are also in the concertina family, but on this forum we don't treat them as such. There is one guy who makes rectangular "anglos" with large melodeon buttons...

That last paragraph really got me thinking....

I suppose the test of a different instrument would be if people would want to own one, if someone came up with a new system or design of concertina people might buy it or not. Its tricky territory here as to weather anything is an "improvement" as there are so many factors that might effect this, sometimes problems and solutions can be imagined... I remember seeing a violin with a guitar shaped body a while ago and thinking it looked rather ugly. Later I spoke to a man who's father was a Luthier and had given the subject of violin design great thought, he basically put it to me like this: "there is a physical object and its physical properties and then there is what those properties mean and represent to us". For me a violin without the traditional side cut outs looked like a half baked thing. When I thought about it though I realised the only reason that I didn't like it is because I wasn't used to it and there was nothing inherently wrong with the idea. (unless it adversely affected the sound, that is something I don't know about)

getting a bit more philosophical about it...when I compared this to a square concertina I had a good think about it and realised that actually for an accordion reeded instrument that shape makes perfect sense seeing as the reed blocks are rectangular, whereas a shape closer to a circle makes more sense for radially arranged traditional reeds. from that perspective it almost seems illogical to make an accordion reeded instrument 6 sided. Though it still looks a bit half baked to us as a 4 sided thing because you don't look at it and think "concertina". I feel like making a hybrid instrument 6 sided is sort of like a solution to the problem of making a "concertina" cheaply but ultimately putting those two extra sides don't make the instrument play better they just make us like it more. And still it makes me like it more. yet I am troubled by the idea that the design is physically logical.

Back to traditional instruments as I understand it is believed that the closer the shape is to round the better the tone. If that applies to hybrid instruments I am not sure, if it does apply then that gives a good and objective enough reason to stick with 6 sides. Did anyone ever test this theory of the relationship of the more circular shape to a better sound in the modern day? Either with traditional reeds or accordion ones. If no one has then I suggest making a few simple structures and testing it and then sharing the results, a waste of time or not, what would you guys say?

To answer the original question, how about:

. a facility to bend a note(s)

. to have notes that fade and to be able control sustain

. being able to adjust the volume of individual notes, or at least to be able to controllably quieten the bass notes

. being able to transpose the entire instrument to change its 'core key'. For example an Anglo that can play in C/G, G/D or Ab/Eb, etc... or a Hayden duet that can switch to Ab as its core key instead of D.

(I think the Hayden core key is D rather than C because D is in the middle of the button field and has more room around it. You could argue that the Hayden core key might be A, especially on a 65 button instrument. An EC or a Crane's core key would be C, I think. Make sense?)

Would love to see a concertina with the capacity to bend notes, unless anyone ever perfected the technique?

. being able to adjust the volume of individual notes, or at least to be able to controllably quieten the bass notes

. being able to transpose the entire instrument to change its 'core key'. For example an Anglo that can play in C/G, G/D or Ab/Eb, etc... or a Hayden duet that can switch to Ab as its core key instead of D.

(I think the Hayden core key is D rather than C because D is in the middle of the button field and has more room around it. You could argue that the Hayden core key might be A, especially on a 65 button instrument. An EC or a Crane's core key would be C, I think. Make sense?)

On a 'Good' concertina it is possible to slightly bend notes and make controled fades as well as adjust the volume of individual notes.

If the instrument has a good dynamic range then swells and fades are just a matter of Bellows control.

The bending of notes has been discussed on C.net , it involves closing the pad by lifting the button untill the hole is 'shaded' (almost shut) and then increasing pressure with the bellows.

Changing the volume of individual notes can be done in a similar way to bending, by not fully depressing the button the note's volume can be supressed.

On the topic of Button size; I would stay with the 3/16" diameter for the English as I often have to press buttons at very acute angles and need the space between so as not to press two at once... or on the other hand the space between is just enough to be able to rock between two buttons and thus play both or one then two as a piece demands... the level of control is perhaps something that years of playing make to feel correct.

On the other hand I could be comfortable with larger buttons on the Hayden , perhaps 1/4".